ThomasLast month, the Fajr Libya Coalition cemented its control over Tripoli after seizing the Tripoli International Airport. Now in a position with significant leverage, the group has demanded that the current government be dissolved and replaced with the General National Congress led by Omar al-Husseini. While other major events around the world--from a destabilizing Ebola outbreak in West Africa to the transpiring situation in Iraq--have captivated our attention, one must ask if our intervention into Libya was even worth it in the first place.

When the Arab Spring ripped through Libya in 2012, Western nations pursued a strategy of regime change thinly veiled as a Responsibility to Protect operation. Leading from behind, President Obama cobbled together an international coalition to establish a No-Fly Zone over an embattled Libya. Empowered by air support, rebel coalitions broke through and succeeded in defeating Gaddafi's military. While a Constitution and Parliament were created, Libya's nascent government struggled to establish an atmosphere of security for the population to live under. Rebel factions clashed with one another over territory and resources, and Eastern Libya declared independence from the government. Islamist organizations took advantage of the power vacuum to consolidate power and use the nation's lawlessness to its advantage.Vast weapons caches left unguarded in the civil war's wake were quickly disseminated across the region. Egyptian Islamists currently combating the military-backed government in Cario have received a copious amount of their weapons from Libya and Tuareg rebels in Mali were emboldened by combat hardened insurgents and weaponry left over from the civil war. As with many conflicts, Libya's instability has not remained localized. Rather, it has been the pinpoint of destabilization across Africa and the Middle East. But what tangible benefits from Libya have we ascertained following our intervention? According to Carl von Clausewitz, war is an extension of foreign policy by other means. Military force should only be utilized to attain a clearly defined national objective, which was absent when we initially established our No-Fly Zone. The language of political leaders was vague and short-sighted. Regime change is only half a policy. There needs to be a coherent plan outlining the steps a country needs to take in days preceding conflict, during conflict, and after conflict. If American leaders have learned anything from our adventure in Iraq, it's that conflict does not end when a government collapses. It continues to exist as competing entities brought together by the desire to defeat a common enemy begin fighting one another over political control. Libya was no different. Much like Syria, various groups had different ideologies dictating their political principles. While many have found common ground, like the National Front and National Centrist parties, others find their positions to be philosophically incompatible. Religious extremism, tribalism, and political heterodoxy once suppressed by Gaddafi's comprehensive control mechanisms have now been allowed to flourish as an incapable central government struggles to coordinate operations and allocate resources to its military.

Revolutions are tricky beasts. On one hand, they carry with them a hope of change. Tunisia has emerged from its political upheaval fairly stable and prosperous. While it faces problems from Islamist groups and chronic unemployment in some areas, its overall future does not seem very bleak. However, most do not end so happily. Too often they are either crushed or bring about even worse situations. In 1975, Pol Pot overthrew Lon Nol's government and established Democratic Kampuchea. The four years his Communist government was in power resulted in the destruction of important aspects of Cambodian culture and a quarter of the population dying from starvation and state executions.

Policymakers and the civilians who elected them must remember that the world is not a domain which is completely malleable to American or even Western interests. There are situations which are out of control for various cultural or political reasons. We should strive to mold situations where can make a difference to our interests and stay out of ones where meddling will only produce negative results. Above all else, we need to avoid creating situations which are out of our control entirely. Gaddafi was a devil who we could influence and even work with, the maelstrom we replaced him with is neither.

I apologize for not posting this yesterday. My family and I drove up to the great Northern state of Wisconsin yesterday. By the time we got up there, it was nearly midnight and I was too tired to get on the internet.

Perhaps a more overlooked facet of international relations is the effect climate change has in altering the global security environment. Despite what Ken Ham or Rick Perry would have you believe, climate change is actively reshaping entire geographic regions. Thawing Arctic ice is an example of this trend, which creates new sea lanes for ships to sail through during summer month. These rather staggering changes are also becoming more accommodating to installations capable of accessing oil deep below the Arctic ice, changing regional geopolitical calculations. America has had to rethink its Arctic strategy from the occasional nuclear submarine to deploy a sizable security force capable of conducting a wide array of operations, from search and rescue to search and destroy.

However, climate change is somewhat of a double edged sword. While the West will no doubt jump at the chance to shorten the distance cargo ships have to sail, and Russia in particular must be quite overjoyed at the chance to further cement their position as a global energy mogul, there are also a host of challenges riding on the coattails of global climate change. On balance, these challenges will ultimately outweigh the benefits that some point to as a sort of indication that climate change is a net positive force.

Global increases in temperature have had a disastrous effect in Africa, for example. Desertification has rampantly thrashed sub-Saharan and Saharan Africa, resulting in frequent droughts, diminished bodies of water, and decreased crop outputs. Subsequently, increased poverty and radicalization have both occurred, creating terrorist breeding grounds out of affected nations. Individuals who find themselves in dire situations often turn to drastic measures, figuring they have nothing else to lose. Given that Americans live in a nation where the government pays farmers not to sell food, it is unsurprising that we are insulated from sudden changes in the international food market. However, temperature variations of even half a degree can cause catastrophic effects on crop yield. In food sensitive environments, a slightly hotter year can devastate a nation's agricultural sector. Therefore, African and Middle Eastern nations are especially susceptible to these negative effects of climate change. Take the 2011 Arab Spring, which up-seated the political status quo throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa. High cost of food was a major point of anger for anti-government protestors in the Arab world. This isn't a new event, either. In the 17th century, for example, lower temperatures caused widespread food shortages throughout Europe, which contributed to political tumult throughout the era.

In the Pacific, island nations are increasingly becoming more and more vulnerable to rising sea levels. Kiribati is expected to become completely submerged underwater before 2040, making the nation's number one goal to find somewhere else to live when their habitat disappears. Micronesia's islands are becoming saturated with salty water, making agriculture increasingly difficult. Increased rates of hurricanes will continue to lay waste to both human and economic security through out the region. Areas of China contend with increased rates of malaria and schistosomiasis due to climate change, an issue that will become more ubiquitous world-wide as time goes on.

Both natural disaster and conflict arising from climate change result in migration, which can further deteriorate conditions within a state or its regional neighbors. Population hegiras often put stress on a nation's economy. If desertification produces 500,000 internally displaced refugees, what is a nation to do with them? How does a government pay, feed, house, and find jobs for half a million people? Such conditions can serve to undermine an already failing economy. Further, if these refugees are fleeing from resource scare environments, it's likely that the place they're headed to is no land of milk and honey. Areas may already struggle to provide enough resources to its own residents, let alone tend to a humanitarian crisis. Moreover, peace in many countries is maintained by a very, very fragile sectarian or ethnic balance between two or more groups. Thus, sudden disruptions in demographics could result in increased political tensions, or even conflict. If ethnic group A already hates ethnic group B, how would they react to having to provide for their care? These are some of the issues I wish to explore in depth, as I think that they'll become increasingly more salient as time goes on. Even if NASA's draconian predictions prove to be incorrect (which is possible), it's obvious that climate change is altering the security environment. Thus, nations must be prepared to deal with these changes in the most effective way possible.